G.R. No. L-7726; November 6, 1913
MARIANO RIOSA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CLARO VERZOSA and CIRIACO BULAN, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On January 25, 1910, Mariano Riosa (plaintiff-appellant) filed a complaint for injunction and damages against Claro Verzosa and Ciriaco Bulan (defendants-appellees). Riosa sought to restrain the defendants from harvesting hemp on a parcel of land and to recover P500 for alleged damages. The land had been sold at a public execution sale on December 1, 1909, to satisfy a judgment against Verzosa, and Riosa was the purchaser. At the time of the sale, Verzosa was still the registered owner and in possession of the land, and the statutory one-year period for redemption had not expired. The defendants failed to answer the complaint, and a judgment by default was rendered against them on April 2, 1910. After a hearing where the defendants presented no defense, the trial court granted a permanent injunction and awarded Riosa P300 in damages on April 20, 1910. The defendants later moved to set aside the default judgment. The trial court (Judge Moir) initially denied the motion but indicated he would reconsider if the defendants redeemed the land. On September 11, 1910, within the redemption period, Verzosa redeemed the property. The court then set aside the default judgment. After a trial on the merits, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that Riosa was not entitled to the injunction or damages. Riosa appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the purchaser of land at an execution sale, during the statutory redemption period while the judgment debtor remains in possession, is entitled to an injunction to prevent the harvesting of crops and to recover damages for alleged waste or injury to the property.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that a purchaser at an execution sale acquires only an inchoate right to the property during the redemption period, which may be defeated by the owner’s redemption. Citing De la Rosa vs. Santos (10 Phil. 148), the Court ruled that when the land remains in the possession of the judgment debtor (owner), and not a tenant, the purchaser is not entitled to the rents and profits from the land during the redemption period. The judgment debtor, as the owner in possession, has the right to harvest the crops growing on the land. Since the defendant Verzosa validly exercised his right of redemption within the statutory period, the plaintiff Riosa’s inchoate right was extinguished, and he was therefore not entitled to the injunction or to damages for the use and occupation of the land. The Court found no reason to reverse the lower court’s judgment.

Separate Concurring Opinion (Carson, J., with Moreland, J., concurring):
Justice Carson concurred in the result but clarified that, under Section 468 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a purchaser at an execution sale does have a sufficient interest to secure an injunction to prevent the commission of waste by the judgment debtor in possession during the redemption period. However, any such injunction or judgment for damages should be conditioned upon, and dissolved by, the debtor’s valid redemption of the property. In this case, since redemption was duly made, the dissolution of the injunction and denial of damages were proper.